Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 19, No. 3, pp.371-406
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print)
Print publication date 30 Sep 2019
Received 05 Aug 2019 Revised 10 Sep 2019 Accepted 19 Sep 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.19.3.201909.371

Functional Spectrum of a Discourse Marker so in Korean EFL Teacher Talk

Jongmi Lee
Graduate Student, Department of English Language Seoul National University 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul, Korea jongmi46@snu.ac.kr

Abstract

This study aims to explore diverse functions of a discourse marker so used by Korean teachers of English as a foreign language. In pursuing the purpose, it describes the recurring patterns of the ways the so is employed in teacher-led classroom discourse. For the data collection, naturally-occurring English classes taught by six Korean teachers of English were audio- and video-recorded. The recorded data were transcribed verbatim and meticulously analyzed within the framework of Conversation Analysis. The results yield four different types of functions that the discourse marker so performs: 1) showing response, 2) consequence, 3) topic-shift, and 4) elaboration. The multiple realizations imply that the Korean teachers of English use the discourse marker so with a wide range of functional spectrum. Based on the present results, further discussion will be provided.

Keywords:

discourse marker so, Korean teachers of English, classroom discourse, conversation analysis, functional spectrum

References

  • Adolphs, S. and R. Carter. 2013. Spoken Corpus Linguistics from Monomodal to Multimodal. Taylor & Francis Group New York and London: Routledge. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203526149]
  • Ahn, S, J. 2015. So as a multifunctional discourse marker used by Korean speakers in English conversation. The Journal of Linguistic Science 75a, 169-188.
  • Aijmer, K. 1996. Conversation Routines in English: Convention and Creativity. New York: Longman.
  • Aijmer, K. 2002. English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus. Amsterdam/Philadeliphia: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.10]
  • Aijmer, K. 2013. Understanding Pragmatic Markers. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  • Anthony, L. 2014. AntConC (Version 3.4.3) [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. Retrieved from http://www.laurenceanthony.net, /
  • Becher, V. 2010. Differences in the use of deictic expressions in English and German texts. Linguistics 48(6), 1309-1342. [https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2010.042]
  • Blakemore, D. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Blakemore, D. 1988. So as a constraint on relevance. In R. M. Kempson, ed., Mental Representation: The Interface between Language and Reality, 183-195. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Bolden, G. 2009. Implementing incipient actions: The discourse marker ‘so’ in English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 41, 974-998. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.004]
  • Brinton, L. J. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin /New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Buysse, L. 2012. So as a multifunctional discourse marker in native and learner speech. Journal of Pragmatics 44, 1764-1782. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.08.012]
  • De Fina, A. 1997. An analysis of Spanish bien as a marker of a classroom management in teacher-student interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 28, 337-354. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00003-9]
  • Fischer, K. 2006. Frames, constructions, and invariant meaning: The functional polysemy of discourse particles. In K. Fischer, ed., Approaches to Discourse Particles, 427-447. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Fraser, B. 1988. Types of English discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 38(1-4), 19-33.
  • Fraser, B. 1990. An approach to discourse marker. Journal of Pragmatics 14, 383-395. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90096-V]
  • Fraser, B. 1999. What are discourse markers?. Journal of Pragmatics 31(7), 931-952. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00101-5]
  • Fuller, J. M. 2003a. Discourse marker use across speech contexts: A comparison of native and non-native speaker performance. Multilingua 22, 185-208. [https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.2003.010]
  • Fuller, J. M. 2003b. The influence of speaker roles on discourse marker use. Journal of Pragmatics 31(7), 931-952.
  • Fung, L. 2011. Discourse markers in the ESL classroom: A survey of teachers’ attitudes. Asian EFL Journal 13(2), 199-224.
  • Fung, L. and R. Carter. 2007. Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics 28(3), 410-439. [https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm030]
  • González, M. 2004. Pragmatic Markers in Oral Narrative: The Case of English and Catalan. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.122]
  • Gumperz, J. J. 1977. The sociolinguistic significance of conversational code-switching. RELC Journal 8(2), 1-34. [https://doi.org/10.1177/003368827700800201]
  • Guthrie, A, M. 1997. On the systematic deployment of okay and mmhmm in academic advising sessions. Pragmatics 7(3), 397-415. [https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.7.3.06gut]
  • Halliday, M. A. K. and C. M. I. Matthiessen. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Routeldge.
  • Halliday, M. A. K. and R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
  • Heldner, M. and J. Edlun. 2010. Pauses, gaps and overlaps in conversations. Journal of Phonetics 38(4), 555-568. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2010.08.002]
  • Hellermann, J. 2003. The interactive work of prosody in the IRF Exchange: Teacher repetition in feedback moves. Language in Society 32(1), 79-104. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404503321049]
  • Hellermann, J. and A. Vergun. 2007. Language which is not taught: The discourse marker use of beginning adult learners of English. Journal of Pragmatics 39(1), 157-179. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.008]
  • House, J. 2013. Developing pragmatic competence in English as a lingua franca: Using discourse markers to express (inter)subjectivity and connectivity. Journal of Pragmatics 59, 57-67. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.03.001]
  • Huang, Y. 2014. Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
  • Hutchby, I. and R. Wooffitt. 1998. Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Jefferson, G. 1981. On the articulation of topic in conversation: Research report to the social science research council. [online] available from http://www.liso.ucsb.Edu/Jefferson/topic_report.pdf
  • Johnson, A. 2002. So… ?: Pragmatic implications of so-prefaced questions in formal police interview. In J. Cotterill, ed., Language in the Legal Process, 91-110. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. [https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230522770_6]
  • Jucker, A. H. and Y. Ziv. 1998. Discourse markers: Introduction. In A. H. Jucker and Y. Ziv, eds., Discourse Markers: Description and Theory, 1-12. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.57.03juc]
  • Kasper, G. 2009. Locating cognition in second language interaction and learning: Inside the skull or in public view? International Review of Applied Linguistics 47, 11–36. [https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2009.002]
  • Kim, D. R. 2012. Position and function of pre-repair-initiator so in Korean EFL learners’ conversation. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 12(1), 1-18. [https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.12.1.201203.1]
  • Ko, H. S. 2013. Overuse of the discourse filler, “so” in micro-teaching talks by Koreans. Language Research 49(1), 25-44.
  • Lam. P. 2009. The effect of text type on the use of so as a discourse particle. Discourse Studies 11, 353-372. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445609102448]
  • Lam, W. and J. Wong. 1996. Hong Kong Student Corpus. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Education.
  • Liao, S. 2009. Variation in the use of discourse markers by Chinese teaching assistants in the US. Journal of Pragmatics 41(7), 1313-1328. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.026]
  • Liu, B. 2013. Effect of first language on the use of English discourse markers by L1 Chinese speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics 45(1), 149-172. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.002]
  • Markee, N. and M. S. Seo. 2009. Learning talk analysis. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 47, 37–64. [https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2009.003]
  • Maschler, Y. and D. Schiffrin. 2015. Discourse markers: language, meaning, and context. In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton and D. Shiffrin, eds., The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 2nd, 189-221.Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118584194.ch9]
  • Mehan, H. 1979. Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard university Press. [https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674420106]
  • Mori, J. and J. Zuengler. 2008. Conversation analysis and talk-in-interaction in the classroom. In M. Martin-Jones, A. M. de Mejia and N. H. Hornberger, eds., Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2nd edition, vol. 3: Discourse and Education, 15-26. Springer Science + Business Media LLC.
  • Mortier, L. and L. Degand. 2009. Adversative discourse markers in contrast. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(3), 339-366. [https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.14.3.03mor]
  • Müller, S. 2004. Discourse Markers in Native and Non-native English Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.138]
  • Nassaji, H. and G. Wells. 2000. What’s the use of ‘triadic dialogue’? An investigation of teacher student interaction. Applied Linguistics 21(3), 376-406. [https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.3.376]
  • Nunan, D. 1987. Does instruction make a difference? Revisited. Tesol Quarterly 21(2), 372-377. [https://doi.org/10.2307/3586743]
  • Nunan, D. 1991. Language Teaching Methodology. London: Prentice Hall International.
  • Oh, B. N. 2014. Multifunctional Uses of the Discourse Marker so by Korean EFL Adult Learners. Master’s thesis. International Graduate School of English. Seoul, Korea.
  • Östman, J. O. 1982. The symbiotic relationship between pragmatic particles and impromptu speech. In N. E. Enkvist, ed., Impromptu Speech: A Symposium, 147-177. Abo: The Research Institute of the Abo Akademi Foundation.
  • Othman, Z. 2010. The use of okay, right and yeah in academic lectures by native speaker lecturers: Their ‘anticipated’ and ‘real’ meanings. Discourse Studies 12(5), 665-681. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445610376365]
  • Platon, E. 2017. The role of the paraphrasing competence in elaborating reception exercises. Studia UBB Philologia LⅦ 2, 13-26. [https://doi.org/10.24193/subbphilo.2017.2.01]
  • Psathas, G. 1995. Conversational Analysis. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.
  • Rendel-Short, J. 2003. “So what does this show us?”: Analysis of the discourse marker ‘so’ in seminar talk. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 26, 46-62. [https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.26.2.04ren]
  • Rongrong, D. and W. Lixun. 2015. Discourse markers in local and native English teachers’ talk in Hong Kong EFL classroom interaction: A corpus-based study. International Journal of Language and Linguistics 2(5), 65-75.
  • Sacks, H., E. A. Schegloff and G. Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4), 696-735. [https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010]
  • Schegloff, E. A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208]
  • Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841]
  • Schiffrin, D. 2006. Discourse marker research and theory: Revisiting and. In K. Fischer, ed., Approaches to Discourse Particles, 427-447. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Seedhouse, P. 2004. The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A Conversation Analysis Perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
  • Sinclair, J. M. and M. Coulthard. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
  • Stygall, G. 2001. A different class of witnesses: Experts in the courtroom. Discourse Studies 3(3), 327-349. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445601003003004]
  • ten Have, P. 2007. Doing Conversation Analysis: A Practical Guide, Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage. [https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208895]
  • Turner, K. 1999. Functional Variation of Okay/Alright Usage in Spoken Discourse. MA Special Project. UNSW. Sydney.
  • Waring, H. J. 2008. Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom: IRF, feedback, and learning opportunities. The Modern Language Journal 92(4), 577-594. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00788.x]
  • Wong, J. and H. J. Waring. 2010. Conversation Analysis and Second Language Pedagogy. Routledge. Taylor and Francis Group. New York and London. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203852347]